this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
7 points (59.5% liked)

conservative

954 readers
2 users here now

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

  1. No racism or bigotry.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. No spam posting.

  4. Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  5. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

  6. No trolling.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
bloopinator
shemmy
baascus
TragicNotCute
7
Judicial Activism on the Rise: High Time for Reform in America's Conservative-dominated Supreme Court? (www.msn.com)
submitted 1 year ago by baascus to c/conservative
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent term ended with a flurry of conservative-leaning decisions that have been met with shock and disapproval, particularly from the left. This conservative trend is seen as a reflection of the 6-3 conservative majority established during Trump's presidency. Noteworthy rulings include siding with a web designer who refused services to same-sex couples, ending affirmative action in colleges, and dismissing President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MasterObee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I asked you to support your claim that the reason why supreme court cases are being rule dhow they are is because they are in rich folks pockets.

You really couldn't, so I don't see why there would be a point to continue this convo.

[–] S_Roman 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You really couldn’t

You can lead a horse to water...

[–] MasterObee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It takes a lot of logical leaps to go from 'someone paid for his vacation' to say 'they're just ruling with whatever rich person is sending them money! I can't point to any specific people....or cases they ruled on, BUT THEY ARE!!"

[–] S_Roman 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't explain something to somebody who doesn't want to listen to the explanation.

[–] MasterObee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can't explain anything because you can't prove what you need to about your statement. You made a statement, but you failed to prove any part of it. I've read every single word you've wrote and gone to each of your sources.

Show me how money has altered any of the sitting current justices opinions.

[–] S_Roman 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve read every single word you’ve wrote and gone to each of your sources.

Reading something doesn't mean anything if you don't understand it.

Show me how money has altered any of the sitting current justices opinions.

See above and actually read in good faith.

[–] MasterObee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reading something doesn’t mean anything if you don’t understand it.

Hahaha, come back with an actual argument, instead of some loose 'see he went on a paid vacation, therefore he just gets paid to rule court cases for rich people.'

You made the claim, I asked which case you thought that they ruled on based on corruption, and what their flawed legal reasoning was.

You can't back anything up that you've said. If you want to be convincing, you gotta back up your claims.

[–] S_Roman 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you gotta back up your claims.

I did, see above.

[–] MasterObee -2 points 1 year ago

You did not note 1 single case ruling that can be related to corruption nor that the ruling had poor law.

If that's all your back up was, it's not convincing.